A Protestant Ireland

Mahogany

Reekwind wrote: »

In the sense that the Scots (Lowlands at least) were not treated the same as the Irish, no. That's by both Catholic and Protestant monarchs.

Scotland, perhaps because it was a unitary kingdom, had always been treated as a near-equal to England; something that was only reinforced by continuing Norman influence. By the end of the 12th C the 'Normanisation' of Scotland had progressed to the point that that was little difference between the 'English' and 'Scottish' elites or modes of government. This is in contrast to Ireland where, far from bringing the island into line with European/Carolingian norms, the initial Norman invaders had largely gone native; preserving the difference between 'civilised' England and 'barbaric' Ireland. (Bartlett's Making of Europe is covers this ground well.)

Again, all this pre-dates religion. Ireland and Scotland were on divergent tracks long before the Reformation.

Hang on, I thought the union only came about in 1707? This is way after Reformation.

As I said, we probably wouldn't be Anglican, we'd have gone down an anti English Protestant route. The Welsh did.

catbear

Mahogany wrote: »

Hang on, I thought the union only came about in 1707? This is way after Reformation.

As I said, we probably wouldn't be Anglican, we'd have gone down an anti English Protestant route. The Welsh did.

By Union the differences between Church of Scotland and CofE were accepted in the mutual interest of ensuring rebuffing a catholic monarchy which the scottish covenanters saw as a threat to their independent church.
Essentially political union between the kingdoms was preferable to being ruled by one monarch, William of Orange was invited to rule by parliament but under license that would ensure that Britain's throne would never be catholic, I believe the condition that the monarch could not be catholic was lifted last year.

Reekwind

Mahogany wrote: »

Hang on, I thought the union only came about in 1707? This is way after Reformation.

Who said anything about union?

GaelMise

catbear wrote: »

I believe the condition that the monarch could not be catholic was lifted last year.

Don't think so, the rule that an eldre daughter would lose out in succession to a younger brother was lifted, but the monarch is still head of the church and defender of the faith.

catbear

Yes you're right. I probably confused this bit on recall:

Marrying a Roman Catholic will no longer disqualify a person from succeeding to the Crown. The explanation published when the bill had been introduced mentioned that those who had lost their places in the line of succession by marrying a Roman Catholic would regain their places, but that those "with a realistic prospect of succeeding to the Throne" would not be affected. The provision of the Act of Settlement requiring the monarch to be a Protestant continues unrepealed.

DecStone

Mahogany wrote: »

As I said, we probably wouldn't be Anglican, we'd have gone down an anti English Protestant route. The Welsh did.

The central issue in Ireland from the initial English incursions was allegiance to the Crown and the ongoing English attempt to establish feudalism. Religion only got into the mix as a tool but not a central component. The old Irish law system - Brehon Law [differing greatly from the Feudal code and English common law] - posed a serious threat to this allegiance and it was this entire Irish cultural system that has to be eradicated.

When Hugh O'Neill allowed himself to be inaugurated 'The O'Neill' in 1594 it sent shock waves to the Elizabethan court. The English Elizabethan army came to eradicate the old Irish law system and codes - religion was only a tool in this endeavour.

Qualitymark

DecStone wrote: »

TWhen Hugh O'Neill allowed himself to be inaugurated 'The O'Neill' in 1594 it sent shock waves to the Elizabethan court. The English Elizabethan army came to eradicate the old Irish law system and codes - religion was only a tool in this endeavour.

Surely the main problem with The O'Neill was that he was thought to be making deals with Essex to unseat Elizabeth I from her doubtfully legal throne?

DecStone

Qualitymark wrote: »

Surely the main problem with The O'Neill was that he was thought to be making deals with Essex to unseat Elizabeth I from her doubtfully legal throne?

Well no actually, the conflict began way before this. The issue with O'Neill - and the other Ulster Chieftains - was that he and they were not conforming to the feudal code of allegiance to the monarch. Ulster was the most Gaelic of Ireland's regions at this time. The rest having been controlled and subdued by the Elizabethan army over the previous decades. The Nine Years War began in 1594 as a result of O'Neill's unwillingness to allow English incursions into Ulster and his open declaration of holding onto an Irish Gaelic title 'The O'Neill'.

Hugh O'Neill's deals with Essex came only as part of O'Neill's defence of Ulster during the Nine Years War and some time after the success that O'Neill and his confederates had at the Yellow Ford in 1598. Essex felt himself to be in a weakened position in Ireland - he certainly acted this way - and O'Neill was trying to take advantage of this.

Qualitymark

I also heard (sorry to repeat gossip) that O'Neill was walking through London one day and some aristocrat said to another "D'you see that fellow? He [some enormous amount of] cattle", and the other one said "Which fellow? Reeeeally?" and that was him done for.

Mahogany

Reekwind wrote: »

Who said anything about union?

Poster above me did.